Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RobbieV on February 28, 2013, 08:55:11 pm
-
Thanks for viewing.
(http://pcdn.500px.net/26266903/c725caf89f4e53b6577c4f5699c56234f2b565df/4.jpg)
-
Very interesting composition, in my opinion, but on my monitor, I cannot see any real blacks. Maybe, you need to increase the contrast?
Also, the tops of the trees are too close to the horizontal centre line and I would crop half the sky out because the top half of the sky does not have much interest and, getting rid of it, will give prominence to the lines/rows in the ground which is what you seem to have focused on (and which I think contain the most interest).
Roger
-
An opinion: I see a lot of nice whites, solid but not glaring, solid blacks and a good representation of all your middle grays. I see a very strong horizontal plane in the foreground, and a strong vertical plane, midway with a lesser, though still strong horizontal line in the sky...so for grins and giggles, I did a crop accordingly: left to right, up and down, left to right.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8365/8517644925_6e57e675cb_o.jpg)
To me, the rest of the sky wasn't doing much for me. I am quite sure there will be many dissenters, but that's what makes this forum so interesting.
-
An opinion: I see a lot of nice whites, solid but not glaring, solid blacks and a good representation of all your middle grays. I see a very strong horizontal plane in the foreground, and a strong vertical plane, midway with a lesser, though still strong horizontal line in the sky...so for grins and giggles, I did a crop accordingly: left to right, up and down, left to right.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8365/8517644925_6e57e675cb_o.jpg)
To me, the rest of the sky wasn't doing much for me. I am quite sure there will be many dissenters, but that's what makes this forum so interesting.
I like your version, it is simpler and I agree that the rest of the sky wasn't adding anything interesting to this photo. In fact, I think that the rest of the sky was breaking the other "lines".
-
I like this, and Chris' crop. Too bad about losing those glorious clouds, but I think it works.
Another quibble: the tree tops don't look as sharp as the foreground, but that seems to be a common problem with trees as landscape elements.
-
Very nice. It looks like Rhine II ;)
I am a little thrown by the fact that this occupies a territory between abstract and, um, not abstract. I have no problem with the treeline being centered. The image falls neatly into quarters, on three horizontal lines. While not as graphically fortuitous as thirds, what are you gonna do when there are in fact 4 regions of interest?
-
Nice to see you back, Andy.
-
Rules, rules, rules, we don't need no stinking rules. Or at least that's the story I keep hearing. And in concert with that sentiment, what difference does it make if the tops of the trees are near the centerline of the picture? In the first place, it's a square format, according to the rules that implies stability and peace. So why not have the tops of the trees at the centerline? That rule-breaking innovation adds to the stability and peace.
And Roger, looks as if your monitor needs calibration if you can't see any "real" blacks.
Don't hack it, don't crop it, don't clone it. It's just fine the way it is. After all, it breaks some rules. That alone should make it good. Right?
Good shooting, Robbie. Andrew's right. It goes beyond just recognizing a worthwhile subject. It borders on abstract, but good abstract.
-
Have to go against you on this one, Russ. It is not a square crop 828 x 900. I wasn't concerned about any stinkin' rules...have I ever been. I was more looking at repeitive patterns that I thought might lend themselves in that fashion instead of including everything.
My original crop shown below was a square crop and while it did follow the nice rule of thirds by centering the trees in the middle quadrant, it was still not overly exciting to my eye....In the end, it is his eye which matters the most.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8517921927_61260b7b85_o.jpg)
-
I try to crop very sparingly (so that Russ won't beat me up). But this time I agree with Chris's crop, and I was going to suggest something similar. With the crop, the clouds now are delineated mostly by horizontal lines that echo (somewhat) the shadow lines in the foreground. The image becomes a much stronger statement about "lines," IMHO.
-
Here's the crop I had in mind!!!
I agree there are good blacks in the image—my eyes were tricking me.
Roger
-
It's not a bad picture, Roger, but it's a different picture.
-
It's not a bad picture, Roger, but it's a different picture.
Agreed, but it is a picture that brings out more of what the photographer's title suggests he wanted to show, I suggest.
Roger
-
I'd suggest that what the poster wanted to suggest is what he suggested in the picture. After all, his title was "Sky Lines." If you take out the sky that sort of suggests that you didn't understand what he was suggesting.
-
Nice to see you back, Andy.
+1 ;D
-
I'd suggest that what the poster wanted to suggest is what he suggested in the picture. After all, his title was "Sky Lines." If you take out the sky that sort of suggests that you didn't understand what he was suggesting.
I think I kept all the lines there were in the sky ;D. But you are right that I thought the lines in the title are the lines in the land because they are in such sharp focus and the tops of the trees and the clouds do not seem as sharp to me. Irrespective of the title's apparent reference to lines in the sky, the lines in the land are what gets most of my attention in this image.
They are intriguing to me because I do not know what causes the different bars of tone.
Roger
-
Have to go against you on this one, Russ. It is not a square crop 828 x 900. I wasn't concerned about any stinkin' rules...have I ever been. I was more looking at repeitive patterns that I thought might lend themselves in that fashion instead of including everything.
My original crop shown below was a square crop and while it did follow the nice rule of thirds by centering the trees in the middle quadrant, it was still not overly exciting to my eye....In the end, it is his eye which matters the most.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8517921927_61260b7b85_o.jpg)
This a probably the best crop, although a little less crop would work also.
Otherwise I like a lot.
-
I'd suggest that what the poster wanted to suggest is what he suggested in the picture. After all, his title was "Sky Lines." If you take out the sky that sort of suggests that you didn't understand what he was suggesting.
Forgive me for seeing the humor in this discussion. I don't know if Russ was intentionally trying to be funny, no disrespect. I have to agree that the OP was the OP and I respect that, so I'm with Russ on that. But the question I have relates to the versatility that this photograph seems to have with respect to cropping and how it changes the "picture." Is this a hallmark of a terrific photograph?
-
I don't know if Russ was intentionally trying to be funny. . .
Actually, David, I was trying to make the point funny to get the point across. And don't worry about being disrespectful (which you weren't). Having spent six years as mayor of my city I'm not at all sensitive to verbal jabs.
-
Actually, David, I was trying to make the point funny to get the point across.
+1
-
It's been great to read the discussion around this after coming back from a busy weekend. I've been thinking about the points made in this thread for some time.
This is a picture I had been playing with for weeks. I have a crop without the sky at all and a version with the sky. I also have about 6 different versions of processing done with this, but eventually decided to release this one as the final version.
Cropping the sky for me was a tough issue to confront. I can see the merits of the crops posted, but for me, the composition of the clouds and their tightness closer to the horizon led me to leave more space in the sky visible. I needed the clouds to be able to breath, but like some suggestions here noted, it upsets the traditional rules of composition. The crop I came up with felt the most comfortable to me, but it's encouraging to me as a growing landscape photographer to read similar discussions.
Without the sky, the picture follows the rules of composition closer, but in the end...how could I leave out a sky like that?